On Mon, May 1, 2017 at 10:20:38AM -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > I'm pretty sure this is not the first year in which your policy of > excluding certain performance-related items has met with opposition. > I agree that there are some improvements that are sufficiently small > and boring that they do not merit a mention, but (1) that's also true > of non-performance items and (2) the fact that people keep complaining > about performance items you excluded constitutes a discussion of > changing your filter. > > My own opinion is that the filter should not be particularly different > for performance items vs. non-performance. The question ought to be > whether the change is significant enough that users are likely to > care. If you've got several people saying "hey, you forgot NNNNNN in > the release notes!" it is probably a good bet that the change is > significant enough that users will care about it.
Yes, the "do people care" filter is what I usually use. When new functionality is added, we usually mention it because someone usually care, but for performance, the threshold is usually whether workloads, even rare ones, would have a visible performance change. It is difficult to determine this from the release notes, which is why I always need feedback on these items. -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + As you are, so once was I. As I am, so you will be. + + Ancient Roman grave inscription + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
